High Court Rules Pharma Companies are Liable for Drug Design and Marketing

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court recently ruled that pharmaceutical companies may be held liable for negligently designing and marketing drugs. The case specifically centers on the now-discontinued drug Redux, which was created by Pfizer. Our team ofdangerous drug lawyersexplains what this Pennsylvania ruling means for future plaintiffs injured by pharmaceuticals.

Redux (dexfenfluramine) was a diet drug approved by the FDA in 1996 and pulled from the market just over a year later, in 1997. The drug was recalled along with fenfluramine in the infamous“fen-phen” heart valve disease debacle. There has been extensive litigation over fen-phen and Redux injuries, which is currently ongoing in Pennsylvania.

Pfizer attempted to argue that it was immune from most claims of negligence and particularly from negligent marketing. The plaintiff in this case, Patsy Lance, had a daughter who took Redux and ultimately died from pulmonary hypertension. Lance is now arguing that Redux was an excessively dangerous drug that should have never been sold in the first place.

Pharmaceutical plaintiffs in Pennsylvania typically sue drug companies under failure-to-warn claims, however, Lance is arguing much broader claims of negligence, including defective design and fraudulent marketing. She also claims Pfizer knew of the drugs’ severe health risks and that they far outweighed the supposed benefits.

The 4-2 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling for Lance is significant because it could open up a plethora of opportunities for injured patients. It is important to note, however, that this ruling likely only extends to drugs that have been withdrawn from the market by the FDA.

It is also worth noting that the majority opinion for this ruling was penned by Justice Saylor, who is a Republican and who does not usually err on the side of plaintiffs. He wrote that pharmaceutical companies violate standards of care if it chooses to market a drug it knows to be harmful. He further asserted that Pfizer did not present a reasonable argument as to why it should be immune from responsibility in the death of Lance’s daughter.

FDA Approval Process Widely Criticized

Much of Pfizer’s argument relies on the notion that if the FDA approves a drug as safe and effective, patients must defer to that authority. The FDA’s approval process, however, has come under immense fire in recent years, and is subject to extensive scientific criticism.

The highly-esteemedJournal of the American Medical Associationrecently released a series of reports and studies centering on FDA dysfunction, the results of which are very alarming. The report receiving the most public attention examined nearly 200 new drugs approved between 2005 and 2012, and found that one-third of them were approved based on one, short-term clinical trial (more on that studyhere). Researchers wrote that the flexibility of approval standards leads to differing, inconsistent levels of certainty over the actual risks and benefits of new drugs.

The FDA responded by citing its “extensive” post-market surveillance programs. These reporting systems, however, are notoriously lax, and fail to accurately reflect the actual harm done to patients by drugs and medical devices.

If American courts are shielding pharmaceutical companies from liability based on the authority of the FDA’s approval process, something has got to give. Either courts must place a greater responsibility on Big Pharma’s duty of care, or the FDA must reconstruct its approval process so only drugs proven to be safe and effective in the long-term are placed on market. As an assistant professor of medicine and public health at Yalerecently told Forbes, replication of trials on a larger scale is a core tenant of science, and is absolutely necessary in the study of medications.

Ourdrug recall attorneyswill continue to report on this case and its implications as it develops. If you or a loved one was seriously injured or killed as a result of a defective or dangerous drug, contact our firm immediately. You may be able to file a lawsuit against the drugs’ manufacturer and receive compensation for your medical bills, lost wages, and other expenses. We provide free case reviews to injured patients nationwide.

Pope Francis’ recent summit on sexual abuse ended in much the same way as it began: offering reasons for hope and promising change, but failing to outline concrete policies for dealing with the issue. …

Archives

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.